Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1025
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
NANCHHU RAM BAWARIYA S/O SH. CHHITARMAL BAWARIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1832 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court emphasized that bail should be granted where the accused has been in custody for a significant period and there are no substantial grounds for continued detention. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner was implicated in FIR for serious offences but was not named initially; he has been in custody since 27.05.2024 without strong evidence against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found it just to grant bail considering the circumstances and previous orders regarding co-accused.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence against the accused-petitioner and the justification for his detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of substantial evidence and the duration of custody warranted the grant of bail, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment in pre-trial detention.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar, Mr. Amit Punia, PP
Order :
1. The accused-petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.374/2024 registered with the Police Station Harmada, Jaipur (West) for offence under Sections 365, 384, 386, 387, 147 & 323 of IPC.
2. Heard.
3. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers.
4. This Court while allowing the bail applications of co-accused namely; Vinod Bavariya, Nanchu Bavariya, Roopsingh Meena, Prathviraj, Pradhan Meena, Sharmila @ Babli Devi vide order dated 30.08.2024, has observed as under:-
"6. After going to the statements of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C ., this Court finds that the statements have been recorded in very casual manner by the Investigating Officer.
7. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners, the manner in which the Investigating Officer has been made and so also the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioners and further the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 27.05.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail"
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present accused petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and while submitting the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner, the investigating was kept pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C . and later on he has been arrayed as an accused. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on false and fabricated facts and without there being any cogent evidence.
6. Having considered the over all facts and circumstances of this case and the aforesaid observations made in the bail application of co-accused by which this Court ordered to release them on bail and the fact that the accused petitioner is in custody for last more than twenty days, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
7. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
